Angels in a Snowstorm on Mt Athos - Bokeh?

[Mick West]

This image has been around for years and keeps getting repeated in collections of "unexplained" photos. But what is it?

It shows a group of five people standing on a snow-covered road. It's snowing. There are various white cross-shaped lights visible that look like this:


There's a variety of versions of this photo, including this one of it being displayed in a picture frame:


And someone holding the image:



What looks like a photo of a photo:



And some lower resolution images that seem designed to look more "authentic"


There are various different stories behind this image, example:
https://sites.google.com/site/orthodoxy1054/thaumata-oi-zontanes-apodeixeis-tes-yparxes-tou-theou

Η ιστορία έχει ως εξής: Οι άνθρωποι της φωτογραφίας είχαν πάει στο Άγιον Όρος. Σκέφτηκαν να περιπλανηθούν λίγο στα μέρη του Όρους και κάποια στιγμή κατάλαβαν πως χάθηκαν. Όμως δεν ανησύχησαν. Στο δρόμο τους βρήκαν κάποιο Μοναχό (κανονικό, μη νομίζετε διάφορα), οπότε του ζήτησαν να τους βγάλει μια φωτογραφία. Και ιδού το αποτέλεσμα…
[translated]
The story is as follows: The people of the photo had gone to Mount Athos. They thought they would wander a bit in the mountains and sometime they knew they were lost. But they did not worry. On their way they found a Monk (normal, do not think different), so they asked him to take a picture of them. And this is the result ...

Source: http://athos.alexsoft.gr/gallery/displayimage.php?album=134&pos=0

Content from external source

The scattering of lights in a photo looks quite like "orbs" - a photographic effect where the flash of the camera reflects off nearby dust motes or snowflakes and being out of focus they appear as orbs, like this:


But orbs are usually circular. How could these all end up shaped like little angels? One way is if there's something in front of the lens blocking light in that particular shape. For example, I just cut this shape in some paper and held it in front of the camera lens:



Pointing it at a Christmas tree (with it the other way up, the image comes out inverted)


What about snow? To simulate some snowflakes I hung a couple of pieces of paper from some fishing line and dangled them in front of my camera.



With no flash it looked like this, just two indistinct white blues in the center of the image:


Turn the flash on, and they stand out more:


Hold the piece of paper in front, and they stand out really well.


The similarities with the "snow angel" photo are quite apparent. You have the same shape in the same orientation. It's white, with various brightnesses and sizes. It's also snowing. It seems very likely that we are just seeing "bokeh" (out of focus highlights) that are shaped like this because something is blocking the lens.

Is it deliberate? Well, it's possible that something could accidentally do this, it's also possible that someone could have an "angel bokeh" cover on, and forgot about it. It's also possible they tried to get the effect deliberately. That's not that important - the point here is that the effect is relatively easy to duplicate, and so we don't need to seek out supernatural explanations

 

[Mick West]

As well as something obscuring the lens, there's also the possibility that it's a function of the lense itself. It's possible that the camera model had a defect or design flaw (or just a design, it's not really a flaw to have odd shaped bokeh) that gave this result.

The aperture of a camera is basically the shape of the hole that the light goes through. Usually, this is defined by one of two things: the shape of the shutter, or the variable aperture (which is adjustable for exposure and depth of field).

Many cameras have a variable aperture that's hexagonal or octagonal in shape, created by a number of overlapping blades. This results in bokeh of the same shape.



A search for "odd shaped aperture" gives a few results:

There's the Canon Snappy Q, an old film point-and-shoot:
http://photojottings.com/canon-snappy-q-review/


While this is not the cross shape, it shows the potential for an in-camera aperture of an unusual shape.

Here's the Minolta AutoPak 460Tx
http://photojottings.com/minolta-autopak-460tx-review/


Which has a rounder but more cross-shaped aperture.

Given these examples, an in-camera explanation seems plausible. Unfortunately, the make of the camera does not seem to be mentioned anywhere.

 

[deirdre]

there's also the possibility that it's a function of the lense itself.

but then all the pictures should have it no? maybe they did, but that is a pretty annoying shape to have in every picture.
Looks more like Jesus on the cross (except the head) than an angel, to me. An unpleasant shape to be stuck with.

 

[deirdre]

could it be a star bokeh that is a bit bent? my camera wont go out of focus so i'm not able to experiment.

 

[Mick West]

but then all the pictures should have it no? maybe they did, but that is a pretty annoying shape to have in every picture.

It would only occur when you got a bright out of focus dot - like an "orb". Those are relatively uncommon.

It also might depend on the camera settings if it's like the cheap cameras seen above.

 

[Mick West]

Another thing in support of the bokeh is the vignetting — the darkening of the image towards the edges and corners.

 

[DasKleineTeilchen]

Given these examples, an in-camera explanation seems plausible

I think its most likely that, given the shape of the bokeh (and if its not a double exposure, bokeh it is). I think its just a halfway closed (daylight, bright snow and flash, something f5) 4-blade-aperture.

 

[LREKing]

It strikes me that the closer the "angels" are, the smaller they are. I'm sure I can think of no explanation other than magic. /s

 

[Jason Bush]

Quick little video that highlights bokeh shapes don't necessarily need to be done with a flash nor be between the subject and lens.

https://www.facebook.com/FirstMediaBlossom/videos/10156677923739586/

Sorry, I couldn't get rid of the play button on the stills.

0:49 - 1:05

 

[Mick West]

Quick little video that highlights bokeh shapes don't necessarily need to be done with a flash

You do need a collection of bright point lights though. Which generally means something like Christmas/holiday lights or a night scene. The whole thing with "orbs" came about because people did not see any bright lights in the scene by eye, but they show up with the flash.

 

[Mendel]

It strikes me that the closer the "angels" are, the smaller they are. I'm sure I can think of no explanation other than magic. /s

I have the exact opposite impression: the bigger angels are brighter and seem closer. How can you tell?

 

[Jason Bush]

Here’s something intriguing to me. It’s a single point of light that causes the effect, stars in this case. Since these single points of light are behind the girl (not blocked by her head), how are the stars PARTIALLY blocked by her head? I think I have an idea on why this is, but I’m curious what others think.

 

[Mick West]

Here’s something intriguing to me. It’s a single point of light that causes the effect, stars in this case. Since these single points of light are behind the girl (not blocked by her head), how are the stars PARTIALLY blocked by her head? I think I have an idea on why this is, but I’m curious what others think.


View attachment 35773

I’d not thought about that before, and one “angel” is seemingly a bit behind one person.
I think it is because the light path is initially a cone, from the point of light to the front lens, so part of that cone can be obscured.

 

[Jason Bush]

I’d not thought about that before, and one “angel” is seemingly a bit behind one person.
I think it is because the light path is initially a cone, from the point of light to the front lens, so part of that cone can be obscured.

Yes. I think you’re on the right track there.

I think this also relates to how a wider aperture has a narrower depth of field. It’s counterintuitive really, letting in more light resulting in less focus. But when you think of it, like you said, as a cone (at least from a single point to the edge of the lens) it becomes easier to inderstand. Now when you close down that apeture, it makes the cone smaller, thus decreaing the light from other areas that causes the focus blur (outside of where the lens is focused).

I used to be a newspaper photographer decades ago. So I’m very familiar with all the concepts, but I don’t have an SLR anymore. However, I would venture a guess that with the setup above, if you close down the aperture (higher f-stop), the star effect would go away.

 

[Jason Bush]

As far as the “angel” appearing behind and partially blocked (this is very apparent when the slider is moved to the darker version of the image). How does that work?!?! That’s really confusing to me. Especially since the effect in this case is caused by particles between the lens and the subjects. Or is that angel caused by a lightpoint source from behind the group?

 

[Mick West]

As far as the “angel” appearing behind and partially blocked (this is very apparent when the slider is moved to the darker version of the image). How does that work?!?! That’s really confusing to me. Especially since the effect in this case is caused by particles between the lens and the subjects. Or is that angel caused by a lightpoint source from behind the group?

I think it's actually in front, and just a lucky alignment makes it look like it's behind. The bottom of the shape not symmetrical, which makes the lower right edge look like it's cut out a bit.





Then where it seems like it goes "behind" the shoulder, that's actually just where it ends. The color matches the "cut-out" shape somewhat, but you can see the light bleeds into the coat both on the shoulder and the collar/hood.

 

[purpleivan]

I'd agree with Mick on this.

I did something similar with the image (adjusted levels to get better contrast) to give better definition to the shape of the bokeh above the man's shoulder. I then cut out the bokeh above it in the image, scaled it uniformly to have the same width as the one that appears to be behind the shoulder and overlaid the position of the "shoulder bokeh" as closely as I could. What I found was that the shape of the two coincided very closely, with nothing lost at the base to the man's shoulder.

 

[LREKing]

I have the exact opposite impression: the bigger angels are brighter and seem closer. How can you tell?

The larger ones above their heads (one partially hidden by that guy's shoulder) appear to be behind them, while the smaller ones to the left appear to be in front of the trees and snow (about the same distance as the figures) and tiny. That's how my brain interprets them.

 

[bosscock]

do we have a timescale for the photograph, the photograph quality, makes me feel. None DSLR film, possible 35mm 'Instamatic ' point and shoot type camera (mentioned above).

if we knew the approx year (looks 1980's to me) then we could look for models with the specific shutter configuration mentioned above... which could have malfunctioned in the cold...